[Cascade]

gnasher, on 2011-January-01, 18:35, said:

I often have the opponents' convention card open in front of me, and others do likewise.

Unless you take a lot of care to only consult the card at your turn then this is illegal.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on 2011-January-02, 17:09, said:

Unless you take a lot of care to only consult the card at your turn then this is illegal.

No it's not. The relevant EBU regulation is:

OB 7D1(e) Under Law 40B2 © (iii) a player may look at his opponents' system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information.

[mfa1010]

gnasher, on 2011-January-02, 16:49, said:

Yes, let's not let East off the hook entirely - he did make an illegal call. This is what should have happened:
- East passes out 2♣
- At the end of the hand, West asks East whether he would have acted differently without the UI
- East says he would (if that is true)
- West asks for a ruling
- The director adjusts the score under Law 23

Something is wrong here.

If east doubles 2♣, then 2♥ is corrected back to 2♣ because X is illegal.
And if east passes 2♣, then 2♣ is corrected to 2♥ because the CC has damaged EW.

So the director will adjust the score to the opposite of the table result regardsless of east's bid.

Or...?

[gnasher]

mfa1010, on 2011-January-02, 17:24, said:

Something is wrong here.

If east doubles 2♣, then 2♥ is corrected back to 2♣ because X is illegal.
And if east passes 2♣, then 2♣ is corrected to 2♥ because the CC has damaged EW.

No, if I were in charge:

If east doubles 2♣, then 2♥ is corrected back to 2♣ because X is illegal. Then this score is adjusted back to 2♥, because the incompleteness of the CC led to the the first adjustment.

Possibly East should suffer some penalty for the abuse of UI, but I'm not keen on applying a procedural penalty for what might just be a misjudgement.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on 2011-January-02, 17:22, said:

No it's not. The relevant EBU regulation is:

OB 7D1(e) Under Law 40B2 © (iii) a player may look at his opponents' system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information.

ok.

I was unaware of this local rule.

Local rules like this make it awkward when playing in other jurisdictions where your habit suddenly becomes illegal.

[blackshoe]

That's why, if you're going to play outside your local area, you should find out what the rules are where you're playing. Preferably before a problem comes up at the table.

[mfa1010]

lamford, on 2011-January-02, 13:48, said:

Well, if he is following the EBU recommendation of only asking if he is considering bidding, then his enquiry does convey UI ...

Sounds like a really awful recommendation. The "then"-part clearly shows why.

Instead players should be encouraged to develope a style where they transmit as little UI to partner as possible. Against lowlevel competitive alerted bids or doubles this is better done by asking often and a lot of the time at random. Nobody needs to ask always or anywhere close because very often one knows in advance or has looked at the CC. Some randomization should be sufficient to throw partner off.

[alphatango]

mfa1010, on 2011-January-03, 04:19, said:

Nobody needs to ask always or anywhere close because very often one knows in advance or has looked at the CC. Some randomization should be sufficient to throw partner off.

While this is true, one unfortunately also needs to convince the director that no UI was available as a result of the question. However, it seems to me that:

1) directors will rule against you as a matter of course (unless they have prior knowledge and experience of your style, perhaps from playing against you), and
2) you could easily find yourself accused of a L73F violation.

I suppose the question is this: would a statement in the system notes or on the CC that you randomise your questions in such a manner be accepted? I suspect it would be regarded as sufficient warning to your opponents not to draw inferences from your question, but I don't believe most directors would be willing to use it to rule that there is no UI available.

[Trinidad]

alphatango, on 2011-January-03, 09:57, said:

While this is true, one unfortunately also needs to convince the director that no UI was available as a result of the question. However, it seems to me that:

1) directors will rule against you as a matter of course (unless they have prior knowledge and experience of your style, perhaps from playing against you), and
2) you could easily find yourself accused of a L73F violation.

I suppose the question is this: would a statement in the system notes or on the CC that you randomise your questions in such a manner be accepted? I suspect it would be regarded as sufficient warning to your opponents not to draw inferences from your question, but I don't believe most directors would be willing to use it to rule that there is no UI available.

I have such a statement in my system book. I have never been asked by any TD to show it. I haven't even been in a situation where I needed to mention that I have such a statement in my system book.

But then again, I am not playing in the EBU. In the jurisdictions where I have played it is fairly normal to ask about alerted bids.

Rik